Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Hussar]

Heh, I'll start with the easy one.

There is certainly a middle ground between low and high magic. I personally feel that stock DnD fills that middle ground. It's actually specifically called out as such in the DMG when they talk about High vs Low Magic. Sure, there's lots of goodies, but, you also don't have imp powered day planners, arcane computers and pyramids that twist time. (If you read Pratchett, you'll see what I mean)

Perhaps a large part of my problem is I'm viewing a lot of this through a fairly long lens of memory. The last time I read an REH Conan was more than a few years ago, so, take what I'm saying with a fair dose of salt, never mind that the Conan I read was L. Sprague de Camp's versions and not the originals.

Yes, you're right, most of the stories involved some magic. That's why it's fantasy. Conan with no magic is Tarzan. (Yes, that's a joke, don't call me on it.) But, the magic in the stories was often not the focus. The focus was on Conan kicking someone's posterior all over the pages. In a few of the stories, he had a magic sword, possible another trinket or so, but that was about it. Conan didn't solve the problems with magic. Any magic item that was in the story was a plot device or a setting device that was quickly discarded after the story.

Let me rephrase that. The magic in the story served the function of setting a certain tone, but was rarely central to the story. While Thoth-Amon featured in a number of the stories, he was typically way in the background. The majority of the action featured Conan against either human or beastial opponents. Is an ape man magic? Meh, that's iffy. Fantastic yes, magic? Not so much.

Compare Conan to Elric. Elric is much higher magic. Take it a step further and you get the Chronicles of Corum. What's the primary difference?

Essentially, Conan solves his problems with brain and brawn. Elric solves his problems by feeding their souls to his demonic sword. Corum solves his problems by summoning a horde of demons to feast on their souls.

Sure, there is magic in the Conan stories. It is fantasy. It's low fantasy because the plot is not resolved through the use of magic (at least not often). In high fantasy, the plot is resolved almost entirely by magic. Toss the ring in the volcano and all your problems melt away.

To me, that is why you can't really have a low magic campaign with core casters in the group. Plots can be resolved by the liberal application of magic. In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues. In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you. Since there are so many spells with lengthy durations, the idea of limiting magical items to the party becomes almost laughable anyway. Greater Magic Weapon and now the fighter has a magic sword. Magic Vestment and now he has magic armor. Bless weapon and now he's got an aligned magic sword and armor. All this can be done by a seventh level party.

To me, to claim that by making everyone else except the party low magic = a low magic campaign, seems very strange. Actually, it seems very much like superhero comics to me. The party has fantastic powers that they use to right wrongs and stop injustice. It's up to the medieval version of the Justice League to save the day.

I prefer, and this is purely my preference, for the party to be a lot higher level before they can be viewed that way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll see if I can drag out my Encyclopedia of Fantasy this weekend, and quote the definitions given therein.

 

[Rothe]

....

Perhaps a large part of my problem is I'm viewing a lot of this through a fairly long lens of memory. The last time I read an REH Conan was more than a few years ago, so, take what I'm saying with a fair dose of salt, never mind that the Conan I read was L. Sprague de Camp's versions and not the originals.

Yes, you're right, most of the stories involved some magic. That's why it's fantasy. Conan with no magic is Tarzan. (Yes, that's a joke, don't call me on it.) But, the magic in the stories was often not the focus. The focus was on Conan kicking someone's posterior all over the pages. In a few of the stories, he had a magic sword, possible another trinket or so, but that was about it. Conan didn't solve the problems with magic. Any magic item that was in the story was a plot device or a setting device that was quickly discarded after the story.

Let me rephrase that. The magic in the story served the function of setting a certain tone, but was rarely central to the story. While Thoth-Amon featured in a number of the stories, he was typically way in the background. The majority of the action featured Conan against either human or beastial opponents. Is an ape man magic? Meh, that's iffy. Fantastic yes, magic? Not so much.

Compare Conan to Elric. Elric is much higher magic. Take it a step further and you get the Chronicles of Corum. What's the primary difference?

Essentially, Conan solves his problems with brain and brawn. Elric solves his problems by feeding their souls to his demonic sword. Corum solves his problems by summoning a horde of demons to feast on their souls.

Sure, there is magic in the Conan stories. It is fantasy. It's low fantasy because the plot is not resolved through the use of magic (at least not often). In high fantasy, the plot is resolved almost entirely by magic. Toss the ring in the volcano and all your problems melt away.

Hussar, thanks for the response. That makes sense to me when you describe Conan that way. I actually agree that Tarzan=Conan without the magic. It also provides a good place to find the mid-magic campaign. I've an unfair advantage as I recently read the 3 volume re-release of REH Conan stories, good stuff.

I still think of D&D as presented in modules and such as rather high magic, at least by mid-levels where you might need a magical weapon and magic to even resolve some encounters, i.e., magical weapon to hit. From what I've seen D&D instead of toneing down spells as editions progressed, the system upped the magic items to make fighter types competative. The inclusion of magic sword shops etc. clinces it for me. Change the need for magic weapons to hit, magic to effect certain creatures, take out magic shops and I'd see D&D as mid-magic. But maybe it is not knowing even further extremes such as you mention. I'm famialiar with Elric but not the others.

To me, that is why you can't really have a low magic campaign with core casters in the group. Plots can be resolved by the liberal application of magic. In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues. In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you. Since there are so many spells with lengthy durations, the idea of limiting magical items to the party becomes almost laughable anyway. Greater Magic Weapon and now the fighter has a magic sword. Magic Vestment and now he has magic armor. Bless weapon and now he's got an aligned magic sword and armor. All this can be done by a seventh level party.

To me, to claim that by making everyone else except the party low magic = a low magic campaign, seems very strange. Actually, it seems very much like superhero comics to me. The party has fantastic powers that they use to right wrongs and stop injustice. It's up to the medieval version of the Justice League to save the day.

I prefer, and this is purely my preference, for the party to be a lot higher level before they can be viewed that way.

On the last point I whole heartedly agree and is how I structure my campaigns, but also I'm not using D&D RAW by any stretch (e.g., you can hurt stone golems IMC without a magical weapon, even a 10th level fighter can die by one good sword blow). So far all encounters IMC have been resolved by brains and brawn, magic just provides a tactical expedient to facilitate brains.

In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues. In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you.

In mid-magic I'd say if you are high enough level you can use magic to aid you in getting clues but it is no susbtitute for leg work and leg work works just as well. In addition, magic would not be all powerful, non-magical counter measures are available to thwart divinations, or make them cost prohibitive.

On the "low" magic world but magic wielding PCs, your point about spells being in effect permanent items is a good one, part of my reason to include not just spell frequency but also spell power in the evaluation of what we mean. I'm not up on current ed. D&D spells, but from what I know of older editions your on point. I still think it is possible to have a "low" magic world and magic wielding PCs, or at least have it on the low side of mid-magic. It's not that the PCs have anything extra than the rest of the setting, it's just that only people with such high training (be it in magic, weapons, sneaking etc.) are going to have much chance of surviving yoour typical adventure. Under D&D they may well be "superheros" given game mechanics but under other approaches with different spells it's not a given. But that gets a bit off topic. In the end I'd have to agree that for a D&D campiagn you won't get low magic world with core caster PCs that doesn't turn the PCs into "superheros."

Just to compare, the Conan stories are told in a low magic way and brains & brawn solutions work, but some of the NPCs are definitively using magic to resolve problems. Is this a case of low magic PCs and a mid magic world?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, thanks for the response. That makes sense to me when you describe Conan that way. I actually agree that Tarzan=Conan without the magic. It also provides a good place to find the mid-magic campaign. I've an unfair advantage as I recently read the 3 volume re-release of REH Conan stories, good stuff.

By that reasoning, though, Low Magic = No Magic. War and Peace, apparently, would then be the quintessential Low Magic setting. Except, of course, that there is occasionally "magic" in Tarzan (example: the witch doctor who makes Tarzan immortal).

Again, I'll wait for that third party (Encyclopedia of Fantasy) opinion.

 

[ThirdWizard]

* 1/2 XP according to CR.
* No magic shops.
* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

Okay I have to ask. How is this creating a low magic world?

I could follow this procedure and end up with a much higher magic world than default D&D! Half XP means nothing as to magic aqusition. In fact, if one halves the XP without halving the magic attained, then you'll end up with PCs with double the wealth of normal! "Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world," is great and all, but that doesn't mean "low" and it doesn't even mean "different" it just means the DM can do whatever he wants.

And, again, no magic shops doesn't decrease the magic of PCs. You can easily run a monty haul campaign with magic everywhere and not have a magic shop in sight. Lots of people did that back in 1E. It doesn't say anything about being a low magic setting.

This is all fine advice and all, and I won't slight you for that. Half XP is something I've had Players ask for. Magic shops are going to be a setting dependant determination. Treasure aquisition handled by the DM instead of rolling on tables is something I've done for years and years. But, I run a high magic campaign in Planescape, so I don't see how any of this relates to a low magic campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And I totally agree with that and do it. Treasure placement in my world is in accordance with my world. But, I also run a high magic campaign, Planescape. "In accordance with your world" is not equivalent to "not much."

Like I said, its fine advice for DMs looking to run a campaign. I don't see how its advice on how to run a low-magic campaign, though. I far prefer my half caster levels, give out less magic items, and ignore CR method of advising people how to run a low magic campaign.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but running a low magic D&D game is a bit more complicated than "give out less magical items."

EDIT: I was in a game that went up to 10th level. I played a Fighter alongside a Druid. I had to my name at level 10 a ring of protection +1 and a heavy mace +1. The druids summons were so much more powerful than me that enemies the DM threw at us were horribly deadly to me, but the druid's summoned creatures could kill them in 2-3 rounds easy.

Combat wasn't fun. The DM has to make more allowances, specifically, those mentioned work.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I totally agree with that and do it. Treasure placement in my world is in accordance with my world. But, I also run a high magic campaign, Planescape. "In accordance with your world" is not equivalent to "not much."

It is if your goal is to run a low-magic world. Obviously. Although, of course, what you call "low magic" might not be what I call "low magic" or Hussar calls "low magic".

And, yes, you can certainly do more if you want, but that's all that's needed.

(Your example, to my way of thinking, is Very Very Low Magic, and such a setting should also have restricted spell lists, IMHO. YMMV.)

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I agree that there's a difference between low/high magic worlds, and low/high magic parties.

I actually sorta hate the whole "low/high" thing because it doesn't capture the essence of what I think of as the problem. Low/high is fuzzy. And, moreover, we're talking about something that's really a continuum. You can end up anywhere on the continuum, and different people would disagree about whether it was low, high, or the nebulous "mid" magic. To clarify, I'd like to quote from something Rich Baker wrote a while back. The 2e supplement Player's Option: Spells and Magic said that magic in the game essentially functioned on three criteria: Scarcity, Power and Mystery. To whit:

Scarcity: How common is magic? Can anyone become a spellcaster or is it a "gift" that only a few people have?

Power: What's the most magic can accomplish? How powerful is it?

Mystery: What do people know about magic?

Rich proposed that a DM should rate these criteria on a 1-10 scale as he sees fit, and then determine, for his campaign, whether the same ratings apply to spellcasters and items, arcane and divine, and so forth.

I think D&D 3e has written more common magic and less mysterious magic into its rules. Maybe not compared to earlier editions (that's been debated to death) but there's defintely a baseline assumption on these three criteria written into the 3e rules. It's not my impression that earlier editions carried the same assumptions. Maybe their modules did: that's, to me, one of the points of a setting. However, from my impression, the Core Rulebooks themselves were surprisingly neutral on the subject.

From my impression, 3e would rate those as follows:

Scarcity (1 being rare and 10 being common): 7-10
Power (1 being weak, and 10 being ultimate): 7-9
Mystery (1 - magic is technology, 10 = Cthulu): 1-3

I can conceive of magic-users being more powerful than they are in D&D, but not by much. They're definitely on the high-end of the power spectrum. Certainly at the higher levels. I can't think of many things beyond the ken of Epic Level magic. But even a moderate level caster has spells that completely eliminate the need for certain skills.

Scarcity is an issue. Magic is very common in D&D. I'd put Eberron at about 9, with FR falling somewhat below that (but not much). Giving credit to the design team, Eberron does vary the "scarcity" rating somewhat by making low-level magic common (say 9) and higher-level effects less common (maybe not even 5...).

Mystery is another area that's taken a beating. Most D&D settings now have stripped the mystery out of magic. Everyone knows how it works. The sense of wonder that Harry Potter gets when he walks into a magic tent is being ruthlessly removed from most D&D settings. "These people are used to this - they'd expect it." The problem is that ubiquitous, non-mysterious magic basically means "magic is everywhere" and the residents of the word don't think twice about it. They're no more impressed by a flying wizard than we are by a helicopter or a dishwasher.

I actually think power is the least worrisome of these. Because, as many people point out, that can be adjusted by limiting the number of high-level casters in your campaign. Well, that and limiting the degree to which spells make skills and other mundane activities worthless. Heck, as I mentioned above, Eberron even does the former (though not the latter). The ubiquitous nature of magic and lack of mystery associated with it are the things that I find frustratingly "written into" D&D.

Moreover, in 3e, items basically hit the same marks as spellcasters, and arcane and divine magic score about the same as well. It would be nice if it were easier to vary the criteria somewhat.

My two cents.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow. Excellent post.